4.6 Article

Combined Stimulation of IL-2 and 4-1BB Receptors Augments the Antitumor Activity of E7 DNA Vaccines by Increasing Ag-Specific CTL Responses

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083765

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2012R1A1A2038430]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A1A2038430] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a major cause of cervical cancer. Here, we investigate whether concurrent therapy using HPV E7 DNA vaccines (pE7) plus IL-2 vs. IL-15 cDNA and anti-4-1BB Abs might augment antitumor activity against established tumors. IL-2 cDNA was slightly better than IL-15 cDNA as a pE7 adjuvant. Co-delivery of pE7+IL-2 cDNA increased tumor cure rates from 7% to 27%, whereas co-delivery of pE7+IL-2 cDNA with anti-4-1BB Abs increased tumor cure rates from 27% to 67% and elicited long-term memory responses. This increased activity was concomitant with increased induction of Ag-specific CTL activity and IFN-gamma responses, but not with Ag-specific IgG production. Moreover, the combined stimulation of IL-2 and 4-1BB receptors with rIL-2 and anti-4-1BB Abs resulted in enhanced production of IFN-gamma from Ag-specific CD8+ T cells. However, this effect was abolished by treatment with anti-IL-2 Abs and 4-1BB-Fc, suggesting that the observed effect was IL-2- and anti-4-1BB Ab-specific. A similar result was also obtained for Ag-specific CTL activity. Thus, these studies demonstrate that combined stimulation through the IL-2 and 4-1BB receptors augments the Ag-specific CD8+ CTL responses induced by pE7, increasing tumor cure rates and long-term antitumor immune memory. These findings may have implications for the design of DNA-based therapeutic vaccines against cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据